• Everyone, please help make our jobs easier and choose the correct category. Thank you

NRLCA Mini Survey Info is posted

"Misc this, misc that, other...you must give a reason why we must accept it."

Wow! Engineered study and we're still dealing with misc bs.

Since it has to go up for approval, that means they have a list of what is, and isn't accepted. Which means there aren't misc items, they just don't want us knowing all the activities we get credit for.
 
I asked to see my DPM on Tuesday. Today I was able to see it. New addresses were active under the edit book tab. However I had to confirm the 4 pin points.
The extra time I added for dismounts, is gone. Add in later? Or misc. time now?
I have heard of phase 2 or mapping maintenance training.
Maintenance would be end of shift.
Anyone else?
 
Incredible to see the Association on 5/4 ask for postponement of data collection because of lack of training, transparency and validation concerns, to here we go. Has any of those major concerns been met? But at least we will get a copy of the mini count daily numbers of a few raw letters and flats. Don't need to see the numbers on the other 95%. Great job! Postmaster says her higherups talk alot about the evaluations tanking with rrecs and the savings. Does Duke Street have a plan in place when this happens? Or will they give another " watch for updates on the national page" and then nothing. Just like with the postponement. Nothing since. The majority of rural carriers are SCREWED BIG TIME!
 
TheDude said:
Why would DPS Flat Errors be counted but DPS Letter Errors are not?

View attachment 7616
Click to expand...
C. DPS letter mail errors ( 3M)
Also for inverted. But isn't that credit wrong/different compared to counts?
RRECs presentation : ' Credit one Random Letter for every 4
inverted DPS Letters'

Mailcount guide : ' Inverted DPS Letters: 1 additional DPS letter is credited in Column 3 DPS Letters for every
4 DPS Letters received inverted. Appropriate credit will be added to the DPS total by rounding down to the nearest whole number.'
 
Last edited:
RR5 said:
Incredible to see the Association on 5/4 ask for postponement of data collection because of lack of training, transparency and validation concerns, to here we go. Has any of those major concerns been met? But at least we will get a copy of the mini count daily numbers of a few raw letters and flats. Don't need to see the numbers on the other 95%. Great job! Postmaster says her higherups talk alot about the evaluations tanking with rrecs and the savings. Does Duke Street have a plan in place when this happens? Or will they give another " watch for updates on the national page" and then nothing. Just like with the postponement. Nothing since. The majority of rural carriers are SCREWED BIG TIME!
Click to expand...
This! It’s the fact none of us can validate anything. We’re supposed to just “trust” the PO. But it’s in the PO interest to pay us as little as possible so that’s a clear conflict of interest.

Unless the NRLCA is planning a last minute grievance or NLRB complaint. But can those stop something from being implemented on such short notice?

The way I see it, there’s 3 potential ways this goes.

1. The USPS, has the data and shared the data with the union, and the union just didn’t tell us. Which would probably open the NRLCA up to a NLRB complaint by its members.

2. The USPS, has the data and didn’t share it with the union. Which would definitely look bad on the USPS behalf and would definitely open themselves up to a grievance or NLRB complaint. This would also bring the validity of the data into question if the USPS simply didn’t share it.

3. The USPS doesn’t actually have the data, and the NRLCA either knows or doesn’t know this. Which would definitely bring the validity of RRECS into contest. This would also shine negatively on the union for not pushing the issue.

Either way at least one of the parties here has dropped the ball massively. If it states data will be accessible to the carrier, and this doesn’t occur certainly this is a violation. All it would take is for people to file grievances over their October route evaluation and when the data isn’t there to support it welp the whole thing falls apart.
 
Am I overlooking this or is there not a place on the Rural Summary that gives the final evaluation for the route?

During prior Mail counts..... the sheets that were signed to certify results of the count had the evaluation time for the route and the option of high option.

Will carriers now choose prior to the evaluation of the route being known?
 
RR5 said:
Incredible to see the Association on 5/4 ask for postponement of data collection because of lack of training, transparency and validation concerns, to here we go. Has any of those major concerns been met? But at least we will get a copy of the mini count daily numbers of a few raw letters and flats. Don't need to see the numbers on the other 95%. Great job! Postmaster says her higherups talk alot about the evaluations tanking with rrecs and the savings. Does Duke Street have a plan in place when this happens? Or will they give another " watch for updates on the national page" and then nothing. Just like with the postponement. Nothing since. The majority of rural carriers are SCREWED BIG TIME!
Click to expand...
Tanking evaluations are not good news for the management either. Fewer people to manage? Less supervisors needed; downgrade of office level equals less money for the postmaster AND the higherups will continually be on the dreaded conference calls demanding that there should be no reason why the carriers can't make their evaluations. It is definitely a case of "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it." In postal world there is definitely a trickle-down theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

New Media

IMG_6946.jpeg
IMG_6945.jpeg
Screenshot_20240509_065514_Chrome.jpg
IMG_1292.jpeg
IMG_1311.jpeg
Screenshot_20240504_084526_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20240504_084611_Chrome.jpg
FLSA [20]7(b) full text.png
2ACC6120-286F-4B4C-A972-C9938E4F38C1.jpeg
Article 2.png
Article 10.7.A.png
Article 30.1.A.png
Back
Top